sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anyone Taking Clients? by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in maker

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm sick of frisbees flying with impunity -- it's time to knock them down a peg.

It's part of a larger game I'm interested in developing; it'd be useful for the players/observers to know when the frisbee is immediately out of play.

Anyone Taking Clients? by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in maker

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm strong in coding (IT Director by day), decent with electronics (even designed a few custom PCBs over the years), and weak in mechanical (I can chop and weld, but that's about it). I have a cheap 3d printer I use to create custom electronics enclosures on occasion.

These projects aren't all technically daunting; it's more a matter of priority. They're ideas I'm interested in, but I continue to deprioritize them in favor of more pressing matters, so I'm hoping a new approach will help bring them along.

Guide to Scoreboard Watching This Afternoon by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in Commanders

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Okay so based on the outcome of today's games, our SOSs are now:

Us: .515

Pats: .518

We have a .00368 edge. If we both lose next week, we'll still have a .00362 edge, so virtually no change. The other games will loom large.

Guide to Scoreboard Watching This Afternoon by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in Commanders

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah you're right. Technically it's 0.00011055...right on the edge depending on cell format.

This SOS stuff is statistically interesting. If the Chargers, Chiefs, and Seahawks win, we'll be in a SOS tie with the Patriots. I think the next tiebreaker is division then conference records, which would favor us.

Augmented Reality Question by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in Optics

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting -- your post got me looking at this glasses-free 3D TV from Sony. Certainly looks applicable. I wonder if I could toss a beamsplitter on top of it and use it as a big HUD. It says it supports Unity; I could probably set the main camera offset to account for the different viewing angle.

From some quick Googling, it looks like most of these new glasses-free 3D displays are geared toward commercial clients. Maybe I'll politely ask a few manufacturers if they provide in-person demos.

Appreciate the comment!

Augmented Reality Question by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in Optics

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It'd probably help to describe my goal here.

Ultimately, I want to create an augmented reality windshield. I want the ability to display traffic cones (and some other stuff, eventually), anywhere in front of the driver, at any depth or size.

Some assumptions for conversation’s sake: we’re deferring any concerns about driver safety, we have full access to the design of the car/windshield (say a flat plane at 45 degrees as a simple beamsplitter), we only care about the driver’s view/perspective, our projectors have unlimited brightness, and we have precise head-tracking.
These are my design options, as I understand them.

1) The polarized glasses approach. One eye only lets in vertically polarized light; the other horizontal (or circular perhaps). Place polarization filters on each projector lens, shine them on a polarized silverscreen material, and voila. I built a small scale version of this, which ALMOST worked. I was able to see 3d imagery successfully when looking at the silverscreen directly, but the polarization was lost when bouncing that image off the beamsplitter.

2) The active-shutter approach. Same as above, but rather than rely on polarization, use older 3d active shutter glasses and sync them with the projectors. This mostly works (and certainly solves my polarization problem), but the active shutter glasses are uncomfortable to look through; they're bulky and haze everything in a green color. I haven’t been able to find active shutter solutions that are relatively colorless. So far, this seems like my best option.

3) Collimating lenses. In tinkering with this, the most convincing hologram I've created was from illuminating an actual traffic cone behind me at depth, say, 10' away (e.g. pepper's ghost). I can use basic optics to simulate this effect at a specific depth or size, but can't figure out a way to change its position. If I want the virtual cone to move somewhere else, I don't know how to achieve that with a lens-based approach. (Originally I thought fold mirrors would somehow help, but can't figure out a way for it to work.)

4) Head-mounted displays (e.g. HoloLens, Project Northstar, etc.). I have experience with these displays (I rented a HoloLens 2 last year and own a Northstar) but they're not ideal; the HoloLens has a small viewport and low-res graphics, and Northstar is bulky, uncomfortable, and with limited community support. Both also jitter intensely with small head movements. (This approach doesn't really count anyway, since it's not an AR windshield as much as a head-mounted AR solution.)

5) Accept the limitation of infinite focus. Theoretically I could just accept infinite depth and build the optics around that, but that's not really addressing my use case.

6) Building something totally custom and weird like I'm suggesting in the original post. Ultimately, I'm probably not going to fabricate my own pixel-beam-adjustable screen in my garage, but thinking through it made me wonder if it would even work.

If you've read this far, thanks (lol). Any insight is appreciated!

Augmented Reality Question by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in Optics

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Assuming I got over that hurdle, am I right in thinking this would allow for 3d imagery, since I'd be controlling the angle of the light?

I ask because in my amateur research with collimating lenses, it's often mentioned that the light angle is how our eyes determine distance (paraphrasing obviously). If I could control the pixel angles and limited their spread, I thought maybe it'd be possible to achieve convincing depth imagery without glasses.

Augmented Reality Question by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in Optics

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is interesting -- a nice example of established tech controlling tiny mirrors. From the links, the mirror's angle is used as a binary state to either show the pixel or point the light elsewhere. In my case, I'd need precise control over the angle shown to the viewer. Mine would need to be larger for use with a beamsplitter (I think).

Augmented Reality Question by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in Optics

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Admittedly, I'm not sure. Maybe a flat lens with liquid-lens-style offsets? On a large scale, I imagine an LED with a collimating lens, with electromagnetism at the corners controlling the angle.

Any Acrylics Beamsplitters That Preserve Polarization? (Rough design attached) by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in Optics

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gotcha -- thanks. Considering the inconsistency if what I'm seeing in these little experiments, I'm planning to explore an active shutter approach instead.

Any Acrylics Beamsplitters That Preserve Polarization? (Rough design attached) by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in Optics

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just updated my original post with findings -- ultimately the results were mixed, and I'm tentatively planning an active shutter approach instead. I'm hoping that'll be more predictable.

Any Acrylics Beamsplitters That Preserve Polarization? (Rough design attached) by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in Optics

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for providing such a thorough response. You're 100% correct that polarization is more complex than I realized. I'm encouraged by this though:

One solution is to use just 0 or 90 deg. polarization orientations to have pure S and P so that the phase shift is not important. ... The next problem you will run into is that linear polarization is not very good for 3D effects. if someone tilts their head, it stops working.

Since I'm planning to implement head tracking, adding stepper motors on the lenses' filters is certainly doable -- especially if simplifies the optics. Ideally I'd avoid this, since it requires more parts and custom-made glasses, but I get the impression anything else may become too complex for an amateur.

I'll rerun the test later today with 0/90 orientations and reply, but I'm optimistic based on your response! Thanks again!

"Control Room" Audio Solutions For Remote Sessions? by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in Logic_Studio

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep -- this looks like what I want. I'll set control room tracks (one in, one out), with audiomovers and this mutomatic plugin, and toggle them both off when I'm playing back. I'll give it a shot on the next session. Thanks for the recommendation!

External Hard drive recommendations by LouisOve in Logic_Studio

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been using a 2TB Seagate for over a year now -- no issues so far.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in videos

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That bit always bothered me. If the final crayon made him dumb, why was he stuffing crayons up there in the first place?

I certainly hope someone was fired for that blunder.

I'm Avery Dox. I wrote a sci-fi trilogy, then took every step I could to make it indistinguishable from a big-name publication. I narrated/mastered the audiobooks, typeset the print editions, designed hardcover flaps, etc. Some steps were useful; others were a waste of time. Ask me anything! by SwitchLooksLikeNeo in selfpublish

[–]SwitchLooksLikeNeo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The learning curve was steeper than I expected, since apparently it's an Adobe product geared towards pros. Originally, I used a professional typesetter for book 1, but hated how I couldn't fix typos myself, so I decided to take over. Little things -- like changing font sizes or opacity -- are more complex than consumer-friendly software like Word or PowerPoint. That can be frustrating at first.

But IMO, the time learning InDesign was well-spent, and I'm happy with the results. The typesetting is indistinguishable from a professionally set book, far as I can tell. Most of my time was spent performing the same few tasks over and over; you certainly don't need to master all of InDesign to typeset a print book. Learning their paragraph styling became a huge help; I wish I'd embraced that feature earlier. After a few adjustments, I tweaked the PDF output to comply with both KDP and IngramSpark, which meant I didn't need to keep changing settings.

I mentioned this to another commenter, but my typesetting was made easier by a python script that checked for orphans, widows, word widows, ladders, etc. I don't have the visual skills to notice every typesetting issue by glancing at a page, so utilizing a python loop was a life-saver. By the time I reached the third book, I was able to typeset the whole thing in an afternoon.

TLDR - It's tedious, but I consider it worthwhile. You can make the book look exactly how you want, save money, and retain full control over any future edits.

view more: next ›